IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO.
5, SEPTEMBER 2007
Concentric Anchor Beacon Localization Algorithm
for Wireless Sensor Networks
Vijayanth Vivekanandan and Vincent W. S. Wong, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Many applications in wireless sensor networks re-
quire sensor nodes to obtain their absolute or relative geograph-
ical positions. Although various localization algorithms have been
recently proposed, most of them require nodes to be equipped
with range-determining hardware to obtain distance information.
In this paper, we propose a concentric anchor beacon (CAB)
localization algorithm for wireless sensor networks. CAB is a
range-free approach and uses a small number of anchor nodes.
Each anchor emits beacons at different power levels. From the
information received by each beacon heard, nodes can determine
in which annular ring they are located within each anchor. Each
node uses the approximated center of intersection of the rings as
its position estimate. We also propose two heuristics, namely CAB
with Equal Area and CAB with Equal Width, to determine the
transmitting power levels of the beacons. Simulation results show
that the estimation error is reduced by half when anchors transmit
beacons at two different power levels instead of at a single power
level. CAB also gives a lower estimation error than some other
range-free localization schemes (e.g., Centroid and Approximated
Point-In-Triangulation) when the anchor-to-node range ratio is
less than 4.
Index Terms—Localization, position estimation, wireless sensor
networks.
I. I NTRODUCTION
S IGNIFICANT advances in hardware technology have led
to the miniaturization of devices that are capable of com-
munication with each other. Wireless sensor networks consist
of hundreds or thousands of tiny nodes that are deployed to
monitor and gather data in a target geographical area. These
nodes have limited processing capabilities and energy in which
to operate. Wireless sensor networks are envisioned to allow
the ease of deployment through redundancy and ad hoc place-
ment. Applications such as remote surveillance and habitat
monitoring require sensor nodes to obtain their absolute or
relative geographical positions [1]. When an event occurs (i.e.,
a stimulus is being detected), the sensor nodes can forward the
data information along with their coordinates.
Various centralized and distributed localization algorithms
have been recently proposed (e.g., [2]–[5]). Centralized lo-
Manuscript received August 15, 2005; revised June 14, 2006 and
July 28, 2006. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engi-
neering Research Council of Canada under Grant 261604-03. The review of
this paper was coordinated by Dr. W. Zhuang.
V. Vivekanandan is with the Corinex Communications Corporation,
Vancouver, BC V6C 1L6, Canada (e-mail: vijayv@ece.ubc.ca).
V. W. S. Wong is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada (e-mail:
vincentw@ece.ubc.ca).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2007.899962
0018-9545/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE
2733
calization schemes require node information from the entire
network to be gathered together and be processed by a single
device. The location results are then propagated back to each
node. With respect to robustness and energy efficiency, distrib-
uted algorithms are preferred over centralized schemes. The
localization algorithms can further be divided into range-based,
angle-based, and range-free approaches. Range-based schemes
(e.g., [5] and [6]) assume that sensor nodes have the ability
to obtain distance estimates to other nodes. In angle-based
schemes (e.g., [7] and [8]), the relative angular information
between nodes is required. Range-free approaches (e.g., [9] and
[10]) assume that no specialized angle or range-determining
hardware is necessary for the sensor nodes. To determine
the absolute geographical location, most of the localization
algorithms also assume the use of special anchor nodes. Each
anchor may be equipped with a Global Positioning System
(GPS) receiver to obtain its absolute position information.
Although both range-based and angle-based approaches pro-
vide a lower estimation error than the range-free approach, they
require specialized hardware for sensor nodes to obtain rela-
tively accurate distance (or angle) measurements to other nodes
and anchors. This may not be cost effective for applications
that require hundreds of sensor nodes over a large coverage
area. This paper focuses on improving distributed range-free
algorithms with higher accuracy.
In this paper, we propose a concentric anchor beacon (CAB)
localization algorithm for wireless sensor networks [11], [12].
CAB is a distributed range-free approach and uses a small per-
centage of anchor nodes. Each anchor emits several beacon sig-
nals at different power levels. Each beacon carries information
including the anchor’s position, its power level, and the esti-
mated maximum distance that the beacon can travel. Nodes lis-
ten and record the beacons from the anchors than can be heard
as well as the corresponding power levels. From the information
received by each beacon heard, nodes can determine within
which annular ring they are located. Each node uses the approx-
imated center of intersection of the rings as its position esti-
mate. In addition, we also propose two heuristics, namely CAB
with Equal Area (CAB-EA) and CAB with Equal Width (CAB-
EW), to determine the transmitting power levels of the beacons.
The proposed CAB localization algorithm has the following
advantages: First of all, CAB is cost effective as it does not
require specialized range-determining hardware in the sensor
nodes. Second, CAB is distributed and energy efficient. Each
sensor node only relies on the beacon signal packets transmitted
by the anchors to estimate its location. Neighboring sensor
nodes do not need to exchange information. In addition, CAB is
simple to implement. Each anchor is only required to transmit
2734 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2007
beacon signals at different power levels. No message exchange
is necessary between anchors.
Simulation experiments are conducted to evaluate the per-
formance of the CAB localization algorithm by varying the
number of anchors heard, anchor-to-node range (ANR) ratio,
and radio pattern degree of irregularity (DOI). Simulation
results show that the estimation error reduces by half when
anchors transmit beacons at two different power levels instead
of at a single power level. In addition, we also compare CAB
with two other range-free localization algorithms: Centroid [9]
and Approximated Point-In-Triangulation (APIT) [10]. Results
show that CAB provides higher accuracy than Centroid. CAB
gives a lower estimation error than APIT when the ANR ratio
is less than 4. Results also show performance improvement
when the Centroid scheme is extended by using different power
levels.
This paper is organized as follows: The related work is
summarized in Section II. The CAB localization algorithm is
described in Section III. The performance evaluation of CAB
and the comparisons with APIT and Centroid are presented
in Section IV. The extension of CAB to other localization
algorithms is described in Section V. Conclusions are given in
Section VI.
II. R ELATED W ORK
In this section, we provide an overview of the several types of
localization algorithms. Survey papers in this area can be found
in [13]–[15].
For the centralized algorithms, one such scheme is based on
convex optimization [2]. In this scheme, the intersection of the
communication range of all neighboring nodes is considered as
the location of the sensor node. A bounding box is constructed
by using the intersection points of the radio ranges, and the
centroid is taken as the position estimate of the node. In
general, centralized algorithms incur communication overhead
by gathering network-wide information to a central point and
propagating results back to the network.
Centralized schemes that have been adapted for distributed
operation include algorithms based on multidimensional scal-
ing (MDS) [3], [6], [16]. MDS is a centralized algorithm
originally used as a psychoanalysis tool to place objects in
space in order to visualize their relationship based on simi-
larity or dissimilarity measures. These measures are treated as
distance-like data and are used to construct a model in order to
visualize and interpret the data in a 2-D or 3-D embedding of
the objects, hence the term scaling. Its application in wireless
sensor network localization has been adapted for distributed
operation in [6] and [16]. These algorithms have been shown
to be accurate and only require three or four anchor nodes to
convert the MDS relative position results into global positions.
However, these adapted schemes also require a considerable
amount of overhead for communications and computation.
Distributed schemes based on anchor location propagation
throughout the network include [4], [5], and [17]. Each anchor
broadcasts its location information to the rest of the network
in a hop-by-hop manner. The anchor’s position and the hop
count (or distance) from the node are used to bound or laterate
the location of the node. At least three anchors are needed for
nodes to obtain a unique position estimate. In these schemes,
the estimation accuracy depends on the accuracy of the distance
information used in lateration or bounding. In the iterative
localization algorithm proposed in [18], nodes with sufficient
neighboring anchors first compute their positions by lateration.
Once these nodes have obtained their position estimates, they
behave as anchors and broadcast their location information.
Thus, nodes that do not have enough anchor neighbors can now
use these additional pseudo-anchors to compute their position
estimates. However, error may accumulate in each iteration of
localization.
In lieu of distributed schemes using inaccurate distance in-
formation, several angle-based schemes that involve measuring
the angles of the sensor node seen by the anchor nodes have
been proposed. This is achieved by using antenna arrays. In
[7], the Ad-hoc Positioning System (APS) scheme originally
proposed in [5] is extended to an angle-based scheme, where
nodes that have at least two bearings to anchors can determine
their positions. Both range and angle information is used in [8]
so that only one anchor’s information for position estimation is
necessary. This is due to the fact that if the bearing (or direction)
and the distance from a node are known, the location can be
estimated.
Some of the distributed schemes rely on special hardware
to determine range and/or angle measurements between nodes.
Although this additional information improves the accuracy
of localization, the tradeoff is a higher implementation cost.
Another approach for distributed schemes is to avoid any
special hardware and simply rely on range-free algorithms. In
the range-free Centroid algorithm [9], anchors are placed in
a grid configuration. Each sensor identifies which anchors it
can hear from and then estimates its location as the average
of the coordinates of all anchors heard. Its simplicity and ease
of implementation result in a coarse estimation of the sensor
node position, which relies heavily upon the percentage of
anchors deployed. In the APIT algorithm [10], each node first
determines if it is within a particular triangle formed by a
set of anchors within anchor range. The position is estimated
to be the center of intersection of all triangles within which
the node has been identified. The APIT scheme significantly
improves upon the Centroid range-free scheme but relies on
sensor nodes being able to hear many anchor nodes. In addi-
tion, the scheme requires neighborhood information exchange,
thereby increasing the communication requirements of the
sensor node.
Some applications in wireless sensor networks only require
the relative positions of the nodes and not their absolute or
global coordinates. In [19], a relative network coordinate sys-
tem is created from a reference group of nodes. All nodes
use the time of arrival technique to determine their positions
with respect to those referenced nodes. In [20], rules based
on graph rigidity concepts are used to obtain the topology
information. The algorithm has two phases. The first phase is a
distributed leader election algorithm. The second phase uses an
optimization technique to obtain the relative position estimates.
Several other schemes have explored the use of mobile
anchors and nodes in sensor networks. In [21], a single mobile
VIVEKANANDAN AND WONG: CAB LOCALIZATION ALGORITHM FOR WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
anchor traverses the network and allows stationary sensor nodes
to compute their location estimates based on the locations of at
least three neighboring nodes. Multiple mobile anchors are used
in [22]. In [23], both anchors and sensor nodes are mobile. The
sequential Monte Carlo algorithm is used for localization. In
[24], an extended Kalman filter-based state estimator is used in
tandem with mobile robots for localization.
Several localization schemes have considered multiple trans-
mission levels for communication. The work in [25] con-
sidered the possibility of quantized received signal strength
(RSS) and presented an analysis of the accuracy with varying
levels of quantization. In [26], anchors transmit at multiple
power levels. The sensor nodes determine the minimum level
at which they can sufficiently hear the beacons transmitted,
which corresponds to a smaller transmission radius. In a slightly
different approach, the work in [27] uses multiple power levels
to constrain the location of the nodes within rings. However,
the method of estimation requires neighborhood information
propagation. In [28] and [29], the range (or distance) informa-
tion is modeled as rings based on RSS values from nodes. This
approach requires neighborhood information exchange and the
use of a grid-scan algorithm for position estimation.
Although distributed range-based algorithms have a higher
accuracy than the distributed range-free approaches in general,
the range-free approaches are more cost effective. In this paper,
we focus on the design of a distributed range-free localization
algorithm that has the following features: 1) simple to imple-
ment; 2) maintain a high accuracy compared to other range-
free schemes; and 3) does not require communication between
neighboring sensor nodes in order to reduce the communication
overhead.
III. CAB L OCALIZATION A LGORITHM
In this section, we begin with a discussion of the background
and assumptions. It is followed by the description of the CAB-
EA and CAB-EW localization algorithms. We then discuss the
advantages and limitations of our proposed scheme.
A. Background and Assumptions
In the proposed scheme, each sensor node estimates its
position solely based on the information gathered directly
from the anchor nodes. Since our scheme does not depend on
neighboring sensor node communication, it is independent of
network connectivity. Sensor nodes do not require any spe-
cial range-determining hardware for localization. On the other
hand, anchors are equipped with GPS modules. Thus, anchor
nodes are more costly, consume more energy, and are larger in
size than normal sensor nodes. In addition, as in the case of
some other schemes (e.g., [10]), anchors are assumed to have
larger communication range than normal sensor nodes. The
ANR ratio is equal to the maximum communication range of an
anchor divided by the communication range of a sensor node.
In a wireless propagation environment, given the signal
power transmitted by an anchor node to be Ptx , the path loss
model can determine the average signal power received by
2735
Fig. 1. Anchor beacon transmission ranges for (a) CAB-EA and (b) CAB-
EW. The total number of different power levels is equal to 3. The anchor lies
at the center of the circle. Ai and wi denote the area and width of the ith ring,
respectively.
a sensor node Prcv . In this paper, we assume the use of the
following path loss model:
k · Ptx
Prcv = (1)
rn
where k is a constant, r denotes the distance between the anchor
and the sensor node, and n denotes the path loss exponent. Note
that other path loss models (e.g., log-normal model [30]) can
also be used for CAB.
Let Pthreshold denote the minimum required received signal
power to decode the beacon signal correctly. Pthreshold depends
on the target bit error rate and the modulation scheme being
used [31]. Let Pmax denote the maximum power that an anchor
node can transmit. The maximum range (or distance) rmax
corresponds to the maximum distance between the anchor and
the sensor node such that the sensor can decode the signal
correctly. By substituting Pthreshold , Pmax , and rmax into (1),
we have
k · Pmax
Pthreshold = .
(rmax )n
By rearranging the terms, rmax can be expressed as

 n1
k · Pmax
rmax = . (2)
Pthreshold
Our proposed CAB algorithm differs from other range-free
localization approaches in that anchors transmit several beacon
signals at different power levels. This requirement is feasible in
current wireless sensor networks. For example, the Mica2 mote
sensor nodes have a range of 18 m for transmission power of
−10 dBm, and 50 m for 0 dBm [32], [33].
Ideally, the different power levels divide the possible trans-
mission ranges of an anchor into a circle and rings. The lowest
power level creates a circular coverage area, and the following
higher levels are distinguished by rings emanating from this
lowest level. Consider the example in Fig. 1(a). If the sensor
node can hear the beacons with power levels P1 , P2 , and P3 ,
then the distance between the anchor and the node is less than
r1 . That is, the sensor node lies within the innermost circle.
On the other hand, if the node can only hear the beacon with
power level P3 , then the node is assumed to be within the outer-
most ring.
2736 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2007

In the next section, we describe how the transmitting power

levels of the beacons are chosen and the procedures to estimate
the location of a sensor node. Note that if a beacon is heard by
a node, it is assumed that the received signal power is greater
than or equal to Pthreshold .

B. CAB-EA and CAB-EW

In this paper, we consider two variations of the CAB localiza-
tion algorithm, namely CAB-EA and CAB-EW. For CAB-EA, Fig. 2. Example of localization by using CAB.
we assume that the area of the innermost circle and the rings
are all the same. That is, in Fig. 1(a), the circle with radius r1 TABLE I
INFORMATION COLLECTED BY A SENSOR FROM ITS ANCHORS
has the same area as each of the rings outside that circle. The
relationship between the beacon transmission ranges ri and the
maximum transmission range rmax is given by

i
ri = rmax , i = 1, 2, . . . , m (3)
m

where i denotes the beacon number starting from the lowest

power level (or transmission range), m denotes the total number
of different beacon power levels, ri denotes the transmission C. CAB Localization Algorithm
range for beacon i, and rmax denotes the maximum range that We now describe the CAB localization algorithm in detail.
an anchor can transmit at the corresponding maximum power The algorithm described below is applicable to both CAB-
level Pmax . EA and CAB-EW. Each anchor transmits the beacon signals
The relationship between the ith transmitting beacon power at varying power levels consecutively. The time between two
level Pi and the maximum transmitting power level Pmax is beacon transmissions follows a general distribution with the

 n2 mean equal to T .1 Each beacon signal packet includes the
i anchor’s ID, the anchor’s location, the transmitting power level
Pi = Pmax , i = 1, 2, . . . , m. (4)
m Pi information, and the estimated maximum distance that the
beacon signal can be heard. Each node listens for beacons and
The derivations for (3) and (4) are given in the Appendix. collects the anchor’s information. For each beacon heard, the
For CAB-EW, we assume that the width of the innermost cir- sensor node determines within which region of the anchor’s
cle and the rings are all the same. The relationship between the concentric transmission circles it lies. Fig. 2 shows an example
beacon transmission ranges ri and the maximum transmission with a sensor node surrounded by three anchors. Each anchor
range rmax is given by transmits beacons at two different power levels. The corre-
sponding information table collected by the sensor is shown
i in Table I.
ri = rmax , i = 1, 2, . . . , m. (5)
m Depending on the percentage of anchors deployed, each
sensor node can hear multiple beacons from different anchors.
The corresponding relationship between power transmission For computational simplicity, information from at most three
levels Pi and the maximum transmit power Pmax is given by neighboring anchors is used to estimate a sensor’s location. In

n order to increase the accuracy of the position estimate, it is
i necessary to minimize the region of intersection by choosing
Pi = Pmax , i = 1, 2, . . . , m. (6)
m the three anchors that are farthest. This is accomplished by
calculating all the possible triangular areas that are made up
The derivation for (6) is given in the Appendix. of the anchors heard and by choosing the three anchors that
Before deployment, measurement is necessary to relate the form the largest triangle. In Section IV, we will show that this
path loss exponent n, the transmission power Pi , and the rule gives a lower estimation error than choosing the anchors
coverage range ri . Thus, the maximum range is empirically randomly.
determined to be the distance from an anchor node transmitting Each sensor node can receive multiple beacons with different
at maximum power at which a sensor node has a received signal power level information from the same anchor. Based on this
power equal to the minimum threshold power. This is important information, the sensor node can determine which particular
in order to ensure the accuracy of the range-free approach. In ring or inner circle it lies within from that anchor. We call this
Section IV, we will study the effects when the information the constraint region. Mathematically, this region is bound by
between Pi and ri is not accurate due to interference from
neighboring environments. We will also conduct sensitivity 1 The above technique reduces the likelihood of collision of beacon signal
analysis for the path loss exponent n. packets transmitted by two different neighboring anchors simultaneously.
VIVEKANANDAN AND WONG: CAB LOCALIZATION ALGORITHM FOR WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
either two equations of circles (for the ring case) or just one
equation of a circle (for the innermost region of the anchor).
The last column in Table I shows the constraint regions that the
sensor node lies within based on the scenario in Fig. 2.
Given the three chosen anchors, two of them are selected at a
time to calculate the intersection points. The valid intersection
points satisfy the constraint regions of all three anchors. The
invalid intersection points are those that do not lie within
the other anchor’s constraint region. Consider the example
in Fig. 2. Let (xA , yA ), (xB , yB ), and (xC , yC ) denote the
positions of anchors A, B, and C, respectively. Let I denote
the set of intersection points. For each point (x, y) ∈ I, it is a
valid intersection point if the following constraints are satisfied:

r1 ≤ (xA − x)2 + (yA − y)2 ≤ rmax
 be affected by irregular radio propagation, to which some other
r1 ≤ (xB − x)2 + (yB − y)2 ≤ rmax
 will present the results of our scheme under different degrees
(xC − x)2 + (yC − y)2 ≤ r1 .
The final position estimate is taken as the average of all the
valid intersection points. Fig. 2 shows the estimated position
determined by four valid intersection points.
The above description of the CAB localization algorithm is
also valid when the sensor node only receives beacon signals
from two neighboring anchors. The valid intersection points
can be determined from the intersection of those rings (or
circles). The final position estimate is taken as the average of the
valid intersection points. On the other hand, if the sensor node
receives beacon signals from only one anchor, then a random
coordinate within the ring that the sensor node resides will be
chosen as the position estimate.
D. Discussion
There are three distinct advantages of the CAB localization
algorithm. First, CAB is distributed and is simple to imple-
ment. For the anchors, their only task is to transmit beacon
signals with different power levels. For each sensor node,
the determination of the intersection points from three chosen
anchors as well as the position estimate by averaging are not
computationally intensive. Second, no information exchange
between neighboring sensors is necessary. This reduces the en-
ergy requirement for localization. In addition, CAB has a higher
accuracy than some other range-free localization algorithms.
Simulation comparisons will be presented in the next section.
For the qualitative comparisons with some other localiza-
tion algorithms, APIT [10] requires communication between
neighboring nodes for the exchange of tabular information
of nearby anchors. CAB does not require that procedure and
achieves better results under smaller ANR ratio. In comparison
to Centroid [9], which requires a grid-based deployment, CAB
is able to perform sufficiently well in ad hoc deployments.
Whereas ring sizes are determined from RSS values in [29],
the rings in CAB are predetermined according to the number
of power levels desired to be used by the anchor. No message
exchange is required between anchors in CAB.
Our scheme is not without limitations. Being solely depen-
dent on anchor nodes for position estimation, the accuracy
2737
Fig. 3. Irregular radio patterns for different values of DOI.
depends on the percentage of anchor nodes deployed. This
percentage can be decreased by increasing the maximum radio
range of the anchors. However, this results in less accuracy
since the intersection areas become larger. Also, since our
scheme’s computation relies on a circular radio model, it can
range-free schemes are relatively immune. In Section IV, we
of irregular radio patterns. Finally, our scheme also depends on
the estimation of the path loss exponent n. In Section IV, we
will also study the impact of the errors of path loss exponent on
position estimation.
IV. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION AND C OMPARISON
In this section, we present the performance evaluation of
CAB-EA and CAB-EW as well as the comparisons with APIT
[10] and Centroid [9] algorithms. All algorithms are simulated
in Matlab. The wireless sensor network consists of 280 nodes,
and a varying number of anchors are randomly placed. The net-
work topology is a square of side 10R by 10R, where R is the
sensor node communication range. The average connectivity
among nodes is equal to eight.
We first use the technique in [10] to model the irregular radio
pattern. In this model, all nodes within half of the maximum
transmit radio range of anchors are guaranteed to hear from
the anchor, whereas nodes between the maximum radio range
and half of that range may or may not hear from the anchor
depending on the radio pattern in that direction. The DOI
parameter is defined as the maximum radio range variation
per unit degree change in direction. Examples of different
DOI values of this irregular radio pattern model are shown
in Fig. 3.
For our simulation of CAB, we assume a path loss exponent
(n) of 2. The ANR ratio is set at 3. The DOI value is set at 0.05.
The estimation errors are normalized with respect to the sensor
node range (R).
A. Performance of CAB-EA and CAB-EW
Fig. 4 shows the percentage of nodes that are able to hear at
least three anchors versus the percentage of anchors deployed.
In general, it is desirable to deploy a minimal percentage of
anchor nodes to localize the system. The results show that for
9% of anchor nodes deployed, ANR values of 3 or higher enable
at least 85% of all nodes to obtain position estimates.
Fig. 5 shows the accuracy gain of CAB-EA and CAB-EW by
increasing the number of power levels of the beacons (i.e., an
2738
Fig. 4. Comparison of the percentage of nodes localizable versus the percent-
age of anchors deployed for varying levels of ANR (DOI = 0.05).
Fig. 5. Average estimation error under different number of power levels of the
beacons for (a) CAB-EA and (b) CAB-EW (ANR = 3 and DOI = 0.05).
increase of m). When beacons are being transmitted at a single
power level (m = 1), the intersection area is constructed by
determining the intersections of three circles centered at their
corresponding anchors. It is clear that with two different power
levels (m = 2), it reduces the intersection area to intersections
of rings and circles. Fig. 5(a) shows that the estimation error
reduces by at least 0.44R when m increases from 1 to 2 for
CAB-EA, which is a significant improvement. Notice that when
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2007
Fig. 6. Comparison of estimation error between CAB-EA and CAB-EW for
different DOI values. (a) DOI = 0. (b) DOI = 0.05. (c) DOI = 0.10. (m = 3
and ANR = 3).
the number of different power levels increases to three (or
higher), the performance improvement is marginal. This is due
to the fact that when m is further increased, the anchor coverage
area is subdivided into a circle and more concentric rings. The
irregular radio pattern model introduces more errors to the rings
with smaller ring width. However, for CAB-EW [see Fig. 5(b)],
the performance improvement is significantly better for three
power levels than two. For anchor percentages greater than
12%, CAB-EW with three power levels outperforms its two-
power-level counterpart by 0.25R. Thus, for CAB-EW, it is
beneficial to use three power levels. For CAB-EA, two power
levels are sufficient.
The comparison between CAB-EW and CAB-EA by using
three beacons and varying DOI values is shown in Fig. 6. In
Fig. 6(a), the perfect radio propagation model results in CAB-
EA marginally outperforming CAB-EW. When the DOI value
is increased to 0.05, as shown in Fig. 6(b), CAB-EW achieves
lower estimation error for anchors deployed of 7% or greater.
As the DOI value is further increased to 0.10 in Fig. 6(c),
CAB-EW is clearly more accurate, which achieves 0.27R lower
error for 16% of the anchors deployed. These results show that
VIVEKANANDAN AND WONG: CAB LOCALIZATION ALGORITHM FOR WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
Fig. 7. Comparison of estimation error between CAB-EA and CAB-EW for
different G-DOI values. (a) G-DOI = 0. (b) G-DOI = 0.05. (c) G-DOI =
0.10. (m = 3 and ANR = 3).
CAB-EW is more resilient to DOI irregularity than CAB-EA.
This is due to the fact that CAB-EA has rings closer together
near the maximum transmission range. For larger DOI values,
the irregularity results in error prone determination of the ring
within which the sensor node is located. However, CAB-EW
has uniformly separated rings and is therefore less prone to
errors near the edge of the maximum transmission range. Thus,
we can conclude that the use of CAB-EA is suitable for m = 2,
and for CAB-EW, it is best to use m = 3.
Besides using the DOI parameter to model noise, we also
use the Gaussian DOI (G-DOI) model proposed in [3]. In
this model, the radio pattern irregularity in any direction is
a Gaussian random variable with the mean equal to the true
propagation distance. We select the variance to be either 0%,
5%, or 10%. Results from Fig. 7 show that although the G-
DOI model does not ultimately affect the relative performance
between CAB-EA and CAB-EW, it increases the overall esti-
mation error of both schemes. This is to be expected since the
G-DOI model is a more harsh representation of radio pattern
irregularity than the DOI model.
It is possible that a sensor node may receive beacon signals
from more than three anchors. In CAB, only three neighboring
anchors are used for localization. Fig. 8 shows the comparison
between two different ways of choosing those neighboring
anchors. For the case of random choice, the three anchors heard
with the lowest IDs are chosen. For the case of optimal choice,
the three anchors that form the largest triangle are chosen.
2739
Fig. 8. Comparison of estimation error using randomly heard anchors versus
optimally chosen anchors (CAB-EA, m = 2, ANR = 3, and DOI = 0.05).
Fig. 9. Comparison of estimation error by using either three, four, five, or six
randomly heard anchors and three optimally chosen anchors (CAB-EA, m = 2,
ANR = 3, and DOI = 0.05).
Results in Fig. 8 show that for CAB-EA, the optimal approach
provides a much lower estimation error than the random choice.
As an example, when the percentage of anchors deployed is
11%, the optimal choice provides an estimation error that is
0.95R lower than the random choice on average. In addition,
for the optimal choice, the estimation error decreases when
the percentage of anchors deployed increases. This is expected
since there are more anchors from which to choose.
The choice of using at most three anchors for position
estimation is to reduce the computational complexity since
considering more anchors results in many more intersection
points to be computed. We are aware that choosing the anchors
that result in the largest triangle region does not always guar-
antee the smallest coverage intersection since the intersection
also depends on the size of the circle or ring constraining the
position of the node. Comparison of estimation error using
several anchors is shown in Fig. 9. Results from Fig. 9 show
2740
Fig. 10. Comparison of estimation error between CAB-EA and CAB-EW
for percentage changes in estimated path loss exponent using different DOI
values. (a) DOI = 0. (b) DOI = 0.05. (c) DOI = 0.10. (m = 3, ANR = 3
and Anchor Percentage = 10%).
that by using three anchors that form the largest triangle (i.e.,
optimal choice), it gives a lower estimation error than using
three or more randomly chosen anchors.
In order to determine the position of a sensor node, the
anchor node needs to transmit the beacon signal packets at
varying power levels consecutively. The beacon signal packet
has various fields including one that indicates the estimated
maximum distance that the beacon signal can be heard (i.e.,
rmax ). As shown in (2), rmax depends on several parameters
including the path loss exponent n. The value of n may not
always be estimated correctly. We determine the estimation
error to the variation of n. The procedures for the sensitivity
analysis are as follows: Assume the actual path loss exponent
n = 3. The estimated path loss exponent n̂ is within the (−30%,
+30%) range of n. Thus, n̂ is between 2.1 and 3.9. r̂max is
determined by substituting n̂ into (1) and (2). The position
estimation errors are determined by using CAB.
Results from Fig. 10 show that an overestimation of n has a
slightly higher error than underestimation. In the case when n
is underestimated, rmax will be overestimated. Thus, nodes use
larger circles and rings to estimate their positions. When n is
overestimated, rmax will be underestimated. This corresponds
to smaller than actual circles and rings equations. Results show
that the correct identification of the path loss exponent in an
environment is crucial to the performance of CAB. We expect
that the characterization of the channels had been performed
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2007
Fig. 11. Comparison between Centroid, APIT, CAB-EA (m = 2), and CAB-
EW (m = 3) by increasing the percentage of anchors deployed (ANR = 3 and
DOI = 0.05).
before the deployment of sensors. Thus, anchor nodes can
transmit the proper value of rmax .
Based on the results in this section, we suggest that the fol-
lowing parameters be used for the implementation of the CAB-
EA localization algorithm: m = 2, r1 = 0.707rmax , ANR ≤ 3,
and the percentage of anchors deployed to be higher than 9%.
For applications requiring greater accuracy, the use of CAB-
EW is suitable with the following parameters: m = 3, r1 =
0.33rmax , r2 = 0.66rmax , ANR ≤ 3, and the percentage of
anchors deployed to be higher than 9%.
B. Comparisons Between CAB, APIT, and Centroid
In this section, we present the performance comparison be-
tween CAB, Centroid [9], and APIT [10]. These two are chosen
because both are also range-free localization algorithms. Based
on the results presented in the previous section, we use two
and three different power levels for CAB-EA and CAB-EW,
respectively.
Fig. 11 shows the position estimation errors as a function
of the percentage of anchors deployed. CAB has better per-
formance than both APIT and Centroid. As an illustration,
when the percentage of anchors deployed is 16%, CAB-EW
with three power levels achieves 0.78R accuracy, and CAB-
EA with two power levels has an average error of 0.81R.
The other schemes, i.e., APIT and Centroid, achieve 0.94R
and 1.31R accuracy, respectively. Note that the performance
of CAB can further be improved by utilizing information from
more than three anchors at the expense of a higher computation
complexity.
Fig. 12 shows the results of the estimation error as a function
of ANR ratio. The percentage of anchors deployed is 9%. As
the ANR value increases, this results in a loss of accuracy
in all schemes. In the Centroid scheme, nodes can now hear
anchors that are further away. This results in a more coarse-
grained estimation of position. In the APIT scheme, the ANR
actually improves the accuracy until ANR equals 5. The error
VIVEKANANDAN AND WONG: CAB LOCALIZATION ALGORITHM FOR WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
Fig. 12. Comparison between Centroid, APIT, CAB-EA (m = 2), and
CAB-EW (m = 3) for varying levels of ANR (DOI = 0.05).
Fig. 13. Comparison between Centroid, APIT, CAB-EA (m = 2), and
CAB-EW (m = 3) under different DOI values (ANR = 3).
then increases with higher ANR values. This unique behavior
can be attributed to the InToOut error identified in [10], which
is more significant at low ANR values and diminishes with
increasing ANR. The CAB algorithm only relies on anchor
information and thus increases in error as ANR increases. The
higher ANR values result in larger ring areas that in turn create
larger intersections within which the node estimate is taken.
Fig. 12 also shows that APIT outperforms both CAB schemes
for ANR greater than 4. Note that in APIT, each sensor node
consumes additional energy for the exchange of information
between neighboring nodes. In CAB, information exchange
between neighboring nodes is not necessary.
Fig. 13 shows the effects of irregular radio propagation on the
accuracy of the range-free schemes. The percentage of anchors
deployed is 9%. Due to the use of fixed empirical range values
for different transmitting power levels of the beacons, the CAB
schemes are more sensitive to the irregular radio pattern than
Centroid and APIT. When the DOI values are less than 0.09,
2741
Fig. 14. Comparison between Centroid, APIT, CAB-EA (m = 2), and
CAB-EW (m = 3) under different node connectivity values (ANR = 3 and
DOI = 0.05).
TABLE II
MESSAGE EXCHANGE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANCHORS
AND S ENSOR N ODES
CAB-EA outperforms the other two schemes, whereas CAB-
EW outperforms all schemes since it incorporates three power
levels. However, for higher DOI values, APIT eventually has
better performance than both CAB schemes.
Fig. 14 shows the position estimation error as the average
node connectivity (i.e., average node degree) varies. Both CAB-
EA and CAB-EW have better performances than APIT and
Centroid. Since the Centroid and CAB schemes do not re-
quire neighboring node information exchanges, the estimation
accuracy of these schemes does not depend on the average
node degree or the connectivity information. On the other
hand, APIT uses the neighboring information to determine the
constraining triangles. Its performance significantly improves
when node connectivity increases.
In terms of message load, we now provide quantitative com-
parisons between Centroid, APIT, and CAB. In Table II, m de-
notes the number of power levels used in CAB, and sn denotes
the average number of neighboring sensor nodes. In general, we
expect that m < sn . Thus, CAB incurs less message exchanges
than APIT, yet both incur a higher message exchange than
Centroid. Note that only anchors transmit messages in CAB,
whereas in APIT, both anchors and sensors transmit messages.
Since there are many more sensors than anchors, the total
amount of messages exchanged in APIT is higher than CAB.
From the computational perspective, Centroid only requires
a single computation to obtain a position estimate. In CAB,
however, 4C2α 2 computations are required to compute the
2 The notation Cqp = p!/((p − q)!q!).
2742
intersections of the rings of each anchor, where α denotes
the number of anchors used to compute the position estimate.
Similarly, for APIT, βC3α computations are required to de-
termine which triangles of anchors the node lies within. The
parameter β indicates the number of grid values that must be
updated to compute the overlapping region of the triangles.
V. E XTENSION OF CAB TO O THER
L OCALIZATION S CHEMES
The novelty of the CAB algorithm is the different power lev-
els at which the anchor nodes broadcast beacons. Although we
have used this property to construct a range-free scheme that es-
timates positions of sensor nodes to be within the intersections
of rings or circles, it is evident that different aspects of CAB
can be applied to some other previously proposed localization
schemes. The three different aspects of the CAB algorithm are
the following: 1) different power level beacons; 2) circular and
ring position constraints; and 3) position estimation based on
information of the selected anchors. These techniques can be
independently applied to several other schemes to enhance the
performance.
In traditional range-based schemes, specialized ranging hard-
ware is required to obtain the distance information between
nodes. However, due to channel fading and interference, es-
timation based on RSS does not always provide a robust
means of distance information. By incorporating the anchor
beacon property, the reliance on specialized hardware and/or
RSS measurements can be reduced. The corresponding result
is that range-based schemes can function in a relatively range-
free manner depending on scheme-specific details. The only
assumption in CAB is that there is a reference maximum
transmission power and the corresponding transmission range
that is empirically derived prior to system deployment to take
into account environment propagation characteristics.
The incorporation of circular and ring constraints can sep-
arately be applied to existing schemes in order to provide an
overlapping region-based localization as opposed to localiza-
tion via lateration or triangulation. Finally, instead of using all
information gathered from all anchors heard to determine posi-
tion estimates, we selectively choose three anchors from which
the position estimate will be computed. In the proposed CAB
algorithm, it is advantageous to do so from a computational
point of view, which is necessary for practical implementations.
Other schemes may also be able to benefit from the selectivity
of anchor information, i.e., whether to reduce computational
cost or to avoid information that may be prone to errors.
A. Possible Scheme-Specific Modifications
In the convex positioning scheme [2], instead of using an-
chors and nodes with fixed radio range, the use of different
power level beaconing can be advantageous. Nodes can listen
to beacons from other nodes and determine their communi-
cation constraint as the distance corresponding to the low-
est power level heard from another node. The accuracy of
the approach depends on the number of power levels used.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2007
Once the nodes have determined their constraining circles,
the linear matrix inequalities can be obtained, and the solu-
tions can be determined by the corresponding semi-definite
programs.
For anchor propagation schemes such as APS [5], in addition
to the hop-by-hop transmission of beacons, the anchors can also
transmit at different power levels to directly reach further sensor
nodes. Nodes can then simultaneously execute both APS and
CAB procedures, and ensure that the estimated position based
on APS falls within the intersection of the rings and circles
determined by CAB. Alternatively, when nodes calculate dis-
tances based on hop count, they can use the information from
the power levels heard to ensure that the calculated distances
are accurate prior to computing a position estimate. In addition,
APS can benefit from selecting only the closest anchors for
position estimation since distances calculated from anchors that
are farther away can be inaccurate.
Range-free schemes can also benefit from the use of multiple
beacons from anchors. The main benefit is the additional infor-
mation gathered by the node in terms of how close it is from
the anchor by simply monitoring the received power levels.
In the Centroid scheme, each node determines its location by
averaging the positions based on all of the different anchors
heard. By using multiple power levels, more information can
be gathered by nodes to further enhance the position estimate.
Nodes can therefore assess the different power levels in order
to estimate their position more accurately. Thus, a node that can
hear more than one power level from an anchor will give more
weight to that anchor than another anchor that can only hear a
single power level.
The APIT scheme can also be extended since its structure is
similar to CAB in the use of anchors with larger transmission
ranges than nodes. Instead of using a scan-grid algorithm to
determine the overlapping of only triangles formed by anchor
positions, the overlapping of circular regions can also be in-
cluded to further optimize the position estimate. Alternatively,
the overlapping of rings can be used in the scan-grid algorithm
to estimate the position of the node. In order to reduce the errors
identified as InToOut and OutToIn in [10], sensor nodes can
obtain estimates of distance from the three closest anchors by
using the corresponding distance related to the lowest power
level heard from an anchor. Using these three estimated dis-
tances, lateration can be used to ensure that the APIT results
satisfy the circular constraints.
B. Example: Extension of the Centroid Scheme by
Using Different Power Levels
In this section, we extend the Centroid scheme by using
different power levels. In the Centroid scheme, the position
estimate is taken as the average of the positions of anchors
heard. However, if we can incorporate the multiple power level
beaconing used in the CAB algorithm, more information can
be provided to the sensor nodes. In this case, each anchor is
weighed according to the number of different power levels
the sensor node can hear from the anchor. Therefore, nodes
that are closer to some anchors weigh their positions closer
to those anchors correspondingly. The results are shown in
VIVEKANANDAN AND WONG: CAB LOCALIZATION ALGORITHM FOR WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS 2743

D ERIVATION OF (3)
Recall that for CAB-EA, the area of the innermost circle and
the rings are the same. For convenience, we denote the inner-
most circle as the first ring. Since the areas of the innermost
circle and the second ring are the same, we have

πr22 − πr12 = πr12 ⇒ r22 = 2r12 .

The areas of the innermost circle and the third ring are
the same, i.e.,

πr32 − πr22 = πr12

which implies

r32 = r22 + r12 = 3r12 .

Similarly, the areas of the innermost circle and the fourth ring
Fig. 15. Comparison between Centroid and Centroid-CAB by increasing the are the same, i.e.,
percentage of anchors deployed with different power levels (ANR = 3 and
DOI = 0.05). πr42 − πr32 = πr12

which implies
Fig. 15. We denote the extension of the Centroid scheme
with multiple power levels as Centroid-CAB. Results show that r42 = 4r12 .
Centroid-CAB gives a lower position estimation error than the
original Centroid scheme. From the above equations, we have

ri2 = i · r12 , i = 1, 2, . . . , m. (7)

VI. C ONCLUSION By substituting rm = rmax and i = m into (7), we have
In this paper, we have proposed the CAB localization al-
gorithm for wireless sensor networks. CAB is a distributed
2
rmax = m · r12 . (8)
range-free approach that does not require information exchange Substituting (8) into (7), we have
between neighboring sensors. It has a low computational
overhead that is simple to implement. CAB uses anchors that i 2
ri2 = r .
broadcast beacon signals at varying power levels. From the m max
information by each beacon signal, each sensor node can iden- Thus
tify the annular ring within which it resides in. The estimated
 12
position of the node is taken as the average of all the valid inter- i
ri = rmax , i = 1, 2, . . . , m.
section points. We have also proposed two heuristics, namely m
CAB-EA and CAB-EW, to determine the transmitting power
levels of the beacons. We have presented the performance
evaluation of CAB-EA and CAB-EW by changing ANR, DOI, D ERIVATION OF (4)
G-DOI, and the number of anchors heard. Sensitivity analysis From (1), we have
of CAB-EA and CAB-EW by varying the path loss exponent n
 n1
was also conducted. Simulation results show that CAB provides k · Pi
ri = . (9)
a lower position estimation error than APIT and Centroid under Pthreshold
a wide range of conditions. It is also evident that the novel
method of anchor beaconing can be applied to some other previ- By substituting rm = rmax and Pi = Pmax into (9), we have
ously proposed localization algorithms. We have also presented (rmax )n k
the results of the extension of the Centroid scheme by using = . (10)
Pmax Pthreshold
different power levels. Future work includes determining the
optimal transmitting power levels of the beacons by formulating From (9) and (10), we have
it as a constrained optimization problem. Pi
(ri )n = (rmax )n , i = 1, 2, . . . , m.
Pmax

A PPENDIX By rearranging the terms, we have

n
In this Appendix, we derive (3), (4), and (6). We use the same ri
Pi = Pmax , i = 1, 2, . . . , m. (11)
notations as introduced in Section III. rmax
2744 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2007
From (3) and (11), we have

 n2
i
Pi = Pmax , i = 1, 2, . . . , m.
m Comput., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 285–296, May/Jun. 2005.
D ERIVATION OF (6)
Equation (6) can be obtained by simply substituting (5)
into (11).
R EFERENCES
[1] I. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci, “Wireless
sensor networks: A survey,” Comput. Netw., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 393–422,
Mar. 2002.
[2] L. Doherty, K. Pister, and L. Ghaoui, “Convex position estimation in
wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE Infocom, Anchorage, AK,
Apr. 2001, pp. 1655–1663.
[3] Y. Shang, W. Ruml, Y. Zhang, and M. Fromherz, “Localization from
mere connectivity,” in Proc. ACM MobiHoc, Annapolis, MD, Jun. 2003,
pp. 201–212.
[4] K. Langendoen and N. Reijers, “Distributed localization in wireless sensor
networks: A quantitative comparison,” Comput. Netw., vol. 43, no. 4,
pp. 499–518, Nov. 2003.
[5] D. Niculescu and B. Nath, “Ad-hoc positioning system,” in Proc. IEEE
Globecom, San Antonio, TX, Nov. 2001, pp. 2926–2931.
[6] Y. Shang, W. Ruml, and Y. Zhang, “Improved MDS-based localization,”
in Proc. IEEE Infocom, Hong Kong, Mar. 2004, pp. 2640–2651.
[7] D. Niculescu and B. Nath, “Ad-hoc positioning system (APS)
using AOA,” in Proc. IEEE Infocom, San Francisco, CA, Apr. 2003,
pp. 1734–1743.
[8] K. Chintalapudi, A. Dhariwal, R. Govindan, and G. Sukhatme, “Ad-
hoc localization using ranging and sectoring,” in Proc. IEEE Infocom,
Hong Kong, Mar. 2004, pp. 2662–2672.
[9] N. Bulusu, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin, “GPS-less low cost outdoor
localization for very small devices,” IEEE Pers. Commun., vol. 7, no. 5,
pp. 28–34, Oct. 2000.
[10] T. He, C. Huang, B. Lum, J. Stankovic, and T. Adelzaher, “Range-free
localization schemes for large scale sensor networks,” in Proc. ACM
MobiCom, San Diego, CA, Sep. 2003, pp. 81–95.
[11] V. Vivekanandan and V. Wong, “Concentric anchor-beacons (CAB) lo-
calization for wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE ICC, Istanbul,
Turkey, Jun. 2006, pp. 3972–3977.
[12] V. Vivekanandan, “Localization algorithms for wireless sensor networks,”
M.S. thesis, Univ. British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Dec. 2005.
[13] D. Niculescu, “Positioning in ad hoc sensor networks,” IEEE Netw.,
vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 24–29, Jul. 2004.
[14] A. Savvides, M. Srivastava, L. Girod, and D. Estrin, “Localization in
sensor networks,” in Wireless Sensor Networks. New York: Springer-
Verlag, 2005.
[15] N. Patwari, J. Ash, S. Kyperountas, A. Hero, III, R. Moses, and
N. Correal, “Locating the nodes: Cooperative localization in wireless
sensor networks,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 54–69,
Jul. 2005.
[16] X. Ji and H. Zha, “Sensor positioning in wireless ad-hoc sensor networks
using multidimensional scaling,” in Proc. IEEE Infocom, Hong Kong,
Mar. 2004, pp. 2652–2661.
[17] C. Savarese, J. Rabaey, and K. Langendoen, “Robust positioning algo-
rithms for distributed ad-hoc wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. USENIX
Tech. Annu. Conf., Monterey, CA, Jun. 2002, pp. 317–327.
[18] A. Savvides, C.-C. Han, and M. Srivastava, “Dynamic fine-grained local-
ization in ad-hoc networks of sensors,” in Proc. ACM MobiCom, Rome,
Italy, Jul. 2001, pp. 166–179.
[19] S. Capkun, M. Hamdi, and J.-P. Hubaux, “GPS-free positioning in mobile
ad-hoc networks,” in Proc. HICSS-34, Maui, HI, Jan. 2001.
[20] N. Priyantha, H. Balakrishnan, E. Demaine, and S. Teller, “Anchor-free
distributed localization in sensor networks,” MIT Lab. Comput. Sci.,
Cambridge, Tech. Rep. 892, Apr. 2003.
[21] M. Sichitiu and V. Ramadurai, “Localization of wireless sensor networks
with a mobile beacon,” in Proc. IEEE MASS, Fort Lauderdale, FL,
Oct. 2004, pp. 174–183.
[22] K.-F. Ssu, C.-H. Ou, and H. Jiau, “Localization with mobile anchor points
in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 54, no. 3,
pp. 1187–1197, May 2005.
[23] L. Hu and D. Evans, “Localization for mobile sensor networks,” in Proc.
ACM MobiCom, Philadelphia, PA, Sep. 2004, pp. 45–57.
[24] P. Pathirana, N. Bulusu, A. Savkin, and S. Jha, “Node localization using
mobile robots in delay-tolerant sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Mobile
[25] N. Patwari and A. Hero, III, “Using proximity and quantized RSS for
sensor localization in wireless networks,” in Proc. ACM WSNA, Sep.
2003, pp. 20–29.
[26] N. Bulusu, “Self-configuring localization systems,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Univ. California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Oct. 2002.
[27] M. Sichitiu, V. Ramadurai, and P. Peddabachagari, “Simple algorithm for
outdoor localization of wireless sensor networks with inaccurate range
measurements,” in Proc. ICWN, Las Vegas, NV, 2003, pp. 300–305.
[28] C. Liu, K. Wu, and T. He, “Sensor localization with ring overlapping
based on comparison of received signal strength indicator,” in Proc. IEEE
MASS, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Oct. 2004, pp. 516–518.
[29] C. Liu and K. Wu, “Performance evaluation of range-free localization
methods for wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE IPCCC, Phoenix,
AZ, Apr. 2005, pp. 59–66.
[30] A. Coulson, A. Williamson, and R. Vaughan, “A statistical basis for log-
normal shadowing effects in multipath fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 494–502, Apr. 1998.
[31] J. Proakis, Digital Communications. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.
[32] G. Xing, C. Lu, Y. Zhang, Q. Huang, and R. Pless, “Minimum power
configuration in wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. ACM MobiHoc,
New York, May 2005, pp. 390–401.
[33] Crossbow Technology. [Online]. Available: http://www.xbow.com/
Vijayanth Vivekanandan received the B.A.Sc. and
M.A.Sc. degrees in electrical and computer engi-
neering from the University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, in 2003 and 2005,
respectively.
He is currently an Applications Engineer with the
Corinex Communications Corporation, Vancouver,
BC. His research interests are localization algorithms
in wireless sensor networks.
Vincent W. S. Wong (SM’07) received the B.Sc.
degree from the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
MB, Canada, in 1994, the M.A.Sc. degree from the
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, in
1996, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of
British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, BC, Canada,
in 2000.
From 2000 to 2001, he was a Systems Engineer
with PMC-Sierra Inc. He is currently an Associate
Professor with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, UBC. His current research
interests are in resource and mobility management for wireless mesh networks,
wireless sensor networks, and heterogeneous wireless networks.
Dr. Wong is an Associate Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY. He serves as TPC member in various conferences,
including the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) and
Globecom. He received the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Coun-
cil postgraduate scholarship and the Fessenden Postgraduate Scholarship from
the Communications Research Centre, Industry Canada, during his graduate
studies.